Schurmann v. Schurmann, 2016 ND 69

Background

Patricia Schurmann (now Heidt) and Ralf Schurmann divorced in 2013; Heidt received primary residential responsibility and $1,600 monthly child support; Ralf received limited parenting time, including monthly visits in Grand Forks and two annual visits in Arizona.
The original parenting plan required parents to accompany children on interstate flights until the youngest was seven and apportioned travel costs; parties later relocated (Ralf remained in Arizona; Heidt moved to Grafton, ND) and both remarried.
In January 2015 Ralf sought modification of parenting time and child support, alleging the original plan was impractical, parental conflict and interference, and parental alienation.
The district court found a material change in circumstances, increased Ralf’s unsupervised parenting time (including extended summer time), and reduced his child support to $1,144 per month.
Heidt appealed, arguing the court failed to properly weigh prior domestic violence and the child psychologist’s recommendations and erred in calculating child support using unreliable income evidence.
The Supreme Court affirmed the parenting-time modification but reversed and remanded the child support calculation for failing to comply with the child-support guidelines and for relying on unreliable income evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether domestic violence required continued supervised visitation or rebuttable presumption limiting parenting time	Heidt: prior domestic violence created a presumption for supervised visitation; court should have required clear and convincing evidence to rebut	Ralf: 2009 statutory amendment removed the parenting-time domestic-violence presumption; court may modify parenting time based on best interests and evidence	Court: Affirmed increased unsupervised parenting time; presumption applies to residential responsibility, not parenting time; preponderance standard applies and no evidence that unsupervised time endangered children
Whether district court properly found material change of circumstances to modify parenting time	Heidt: original stipulation and psychologist recommendations should limit modification	Ralf: moves, parental conflict, and both parties’ remarriage made original plan impractical	Court: Found material change (move, remarriages, plan not working); modification was in children’s best interests — affirmed
Whether district court erred in discounting psychologist’s prior recommendations	Heidt: court penalized her for stipulating without presenting the psychologist as expert at hearing	Ralf: recommendations were outdated and not in evidence as expert testimony	Court: No error; recommendations were not binding, no expert testimony, circumstances changed — affirmed
Whether child support calculation complied with guidelines and used reliable income evidence	Heidt: court improperly relied on Ralf’s tax returns and failed to impute income or account for experience; gift improperly included as in-kind income	Ralf: tax returns and submissions reasonably established income	Court: Reversed child support reduction; court relied on incomplete/evasive records and misapplied guideline provisions (in-kind gift and imputation rules); remanded for recalculation and possible additional evidence

Key Cases Cited

Berg v. Berg, 606 N.W.2d 895 (N.D. 2000) (prior rule creating supervised-visitation presumption after domestic violence finding)
Simburger v. Simburger, 701 N.W.2d 880 (N.D. 2005) (parenting-time modification governed by § 14‑05‑22 after initial residential award)
Wigginton v. Wigginton, 692 N.W.2d 108 (N.D. 2005) (visitation restricted only on preponderance showing of likely harm)
Paulson v. Paulson, 694 N.W.2d 681 (N.D. 2005) (standard for restricting visitation post-residential award)
Capes v. Capes, 870 N.W.2d 448 (N.D. 2015) (clearly erroneous standard for parenting-time factual findings)
Jensen v. Jensen, 835 N.W.2d 819 (N.D. 2013) (parental move may be material change of circumstances)
Glass v. Glass, 800 N.W.2d 691 (N.D. 2011) (environment endangering child can be material change)
Hoverson v. Hoverson, 859 N.W.2d 390 (N.D. 2015) (parental conflict over plan can justify modification)
Torgerson v. Torgerson, 669 N.W.2d 98 (N.D. 2003) (courts should not accept distorted income reporting to reduce support)
Verhey v. McKenzie, 763 N.W.2d 113 (N.D. 2009) (failure to follow child support guidelines is legal error)
Machart v. Machart, 776 N.W.2d 795 (N.D. 2009) (guidelines require income be documented by tax returns and wage statements)
Cook v. Eggers, 593 N.W.2d 781 (N.D. 1999) (discussion of including in-kind benefits as income under older guidelines)
State ex rel. K.B. v. Bauer, 763 N.W.2d 462 (N.D. 2009) (court discretion to exclude atypical past earnings when predicting future income)
Buchholz v. Buchholz, 590 N.W.2d 215 (N.D. 1999) (standards of review for child support and modification proceedings)
Oien v. Oien, 706 N.W.2d 81 (N.D. 2005) (presumptively correct guideline amount applies when prior order was at least a year old)